• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Survey says Dems super bloodthirsty

If people advocate for killing Dump: 'Libs are bloodthirsty radicals who fantasize about murdering political opponents!'
If people don't advocate for killing Dump: 'Libs are just pretending that Dump is fascist!'

Love obvious bad-faith pearl-clutching.
 
well unfortunately i haven't really structured my life around assassinating presidents. i just have a normal job and a bunch of other responsibilities and left the ensuring democracy prevails to other people, that seriously seem to have let us all down. i'm not too equipped on the who and the how or whether you compare him to hitler or nazi germany or whatever, if you don't think this is absolutely out of control and on a path to disaster idk what to tell you. you're as cowardly and scumbaggy as the woke trans assassins you spend your time worrying about.
 
Lets have some fun with this

If they really believed that Trump abortion was another Hitler murdering innocent babies, and that he it was leading the United States down the path to Nazi Germany Hell, they should support/advocate/work towards his assassination killing doctors and bombing clinics. But they don't really believe that, they just want to fantasize that they're the modern-day Sophie Scholl (I'd put John Brown here but I don't think he's popular with that set.) , bravely standing up to a tyrant against the murder of innocents.
I mean, we can do this with any mediocre white boy right-wing power fantasy.
 
I don't get how not openly advocating for political assassination makes someone a coward and a scumbag.
Indeed. I certainly have no interest in the continued life of many people, but that does not make me a repressed assassin. Of course theprestige likes to be contrarian and snarky as a rule, but assassination is a thing by itself, and doing it or even advocating it is not the same as wishing a person gone.

There is a serious difference between what one desires or feels, and what one believes a right thing to do. That's what morality is all about. If nobody wanted to murder their enemies or steal people's stuff, or do other wrong things, we would not need any rules at all. I can secretly or even not so secretly wish murder and mayhem on my foes and engage in bloody fantasies, and still know perfectly well that such things should not be done, and that it would be a sin and a mistake to do them.

theprestige here sounds like a teenager who thinks that you're a phony unless the world can see and smell the real you.
 
You can do it with anything. The depressing reality is that most of us are pretty much powerless to affect the broader forces that control our lives. So we sometimes retreat to fantasy, or wishful thinking.
Its pretty much why western and action genres in media exist.
 
Lets have some fun with this


I mean, we can do this with any mediocre white boy right-wing power fantasy.
Exactly this.
Except of course that the far-right has a much more pronounced tendency to actually do ◊◊◊◊ like this. Even the two recent attempts on Dump's life weren't done by liberals, terrorism seems to be pretty much the far-right.

Then the same far-right get their panties in a twist if left-wing activists block a motorway, joke about what to do with Dump's body after his death, or throw soup at a plexiglass plate in front of a painting.
 
Last edited:
I see you're a fan of silly time travel scenarios.
What does this mean? It's not too late. It wasn't too late back when people first started the Trump=Hitler nonsense.

Are you saying that if you'd known then what you know now, you'd have been more proactive about getting him dead? That the idea of killing him to save the world isn't silly in and of itself, but now it's too late and time travel is silly?
 
What does this mean? It's not too late. It wasn't too late back when people first started the Trump=Hitler nonsense.

Are you saying that if you'd known then what you know now, you'd have been more proactive about getting him dead? That the idea of killing him to save the world isn't silly in and of itself, but now it's too late and time travel is silly?
I'm referring to the cliché that everyone wants to travel back in time and shoot Hitler before the bad stuff. See Futurama, etc., etc. (personally I don't think it would have solved anything, but that's besides the point).

I suppose you'll disagree, but Hitler and Trump have been at similar points on their path down fascism alley. And in either case, the true justification for their assassination only works with time travel -- Hitler before the war and Holocaust, and Trump before ... well, we'll see. Many "Hitlers" simply failed. Unless you think everyone spouting similar things as pre-war Hitler should be assassinated?

So it's a silly time travel scenario.
 
I'm referring to the cliché that everyone wants to travel back in time and shoot Hitler before the bad stuff. See Futurama, etc., etc. (personally I don't think it would have solved anything, but that's besides the point).

I suppose you'll disagree, but Hitler and Trump have been at similar points on their path down fascism alley. And in either case, the true justification for their assassination only works with time travel -- Hitler before the war and Holocaust, and Trump before ... well, we'll see. Many "Hitlers" simply failed. Unless you think everyone spouting similar things as pre-war Hitler should be assassinated?

So it's a silly time travel scenario.
That's a lot of words to say you're opposed to political assassination, preferring a policy of wait and see until it's too late anyway.

Do you think that everyone who's fond of the Trump = Hitler equation shares your view, that he's not yet Hitler enough to be assassinated before he gets any worse?
 
That's a lot of words to say you're opposed to political assassination, preferring a policy of wait and see until it's too late anyway.
I prefer a policy of convincing fascism-sympathisers to stop being fascism-sympathisers. There's really no other way to stop it, even in my wildest power fantasies, even in Nazi Germany. The other options are only effective once it's too late anyway.

It's really on the fascism-sympathisers (including those who tacitly accept fascism by not speaking up or being scoffingly aloof towards those who do speak up) to prevent this.

Do you think that everyone who's fond of the Trump = Hitler equation shares your view, that he's not yet Hitler enough to be assassinated before he gets any worse?
Oversimplified, but generally yes.
 
That's a lot of words to say you're opposed to political assassination, preferring a policy of wait and see until it's too late anyway.

Do you think that everyone who's fond of the Trump = Hitler equation shares your view, that he's not yet Hitler enough to be assassinated before he gets any worse?
I can't speak for everyone, but while optimistic perhaps, I don't think it's too late. Even though I think it might be, and think that those most empowered to make a change will likely miss the chance, I think that at this point there still is a chance short of assassination, and that to predict the worst is a poor decision even if, in retrospect one finds the worst has happened. A habit of pre-emptively cutting to the chase every time we see a trend going the wrong way is, I think, an unhealthy habit in and of itself. I say this even though as I look at it I find myself feeling a bit uncomfortably Kantian to do so, but I think one can have values without absolutes.
 
You'd already have to go back in time to the 80s or 90s to try an alternate universe without Trump, as opposed to throwing the whole country into (even more) hyper-partisan chaos. And at that point, why not help him run a really successful casino instead of murdering the guy?
Umm.... given Trump's complete incompetence as a businessman, I doubt anyone would be able to help him run a successful casino.
Or just get The Apprentice shitcanned before it hits production? Ditto Hitler, if you can go back in time, get him a patron of the arts, don't need to murder the guy before he's even gotten anyone killed.
From an imaginary/fantasy point of view, an assasination makes more sense than trying to "divert" someone like Trump or Hitler, because it 1) takes less resources, and 2) is a more "finite" solution (i.e. you don't have to worry if you set up Trump to actually be successful at running a casino that he still won't enter politics at some point, or that if you found a patron for hitler's paintings, that eventually they might have a falling out.)
 
There are a lot of companies who basically are paid to conduct polls in whith the outcome is planned in advance.
There are a lot of "skeptics" who make unsubstantiated claims and insinuations.
 
it’s also fiction, and you want some stakes and action. maybe as some kind of black comedy you could go back in time to help hitler
 
Exactly this.
Except of course that the far-right has a much more pronounced tendency to actually do ◊◊◊◊ like this. Even the two recent attempts on Dump's life weren't done by liberals, terrorism seems to be pretty much the far-right.

Then the same far-right get their panties in a twist if left-wing activists block a motorway, joke about what to do with Dump's body after his death, or throw soup at a plexiglass plate in front of a painting.
Right now that is correct. But it not like the Left is not capabl eof terroism. Look at the radical groups like the SLA in the late 60's and Earlier Sevewnties.
So the potential is there.
I really have major issues with this whole simplictic "Left GOOD, Right BAd" mentality. History shows different. Not much to choose between Hitler and Stalin.
Ihave a basic mistrust of ANY dogmatic political ideologue. Thye are just as dangerous as any religious fantatic, same mentality.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom